Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>What it would do is make a statement that society does not accept that type of behavior.<< It also makes a statement that we're willing to let children fend for themselves if we don't agree with the choices their parents made.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Eventually that baby grows up and we get to see what we all created. Then what?<< We punish them, too! Because it's far better to pay to house them in jail than it is to pay to educate and feed them.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Do you really think your solution would create healthier, more responsible children, Jonvn?" Is what we are doing now creating responsible children? It doesn't seem so. In fact, it is doing quite the opposite by creating a cycle of welfare dependence. I think a lot of these kids would actually be better off in an orphanage than with the mother, who sits and collects a check and has absolutely no redeeming societal values to pass on to the children. "Meanwhile, where's the father? The other half of the picture?" Often not found. And if found, would of course have to contribute to the children's welfare that the state has taken on. "maybe your concern is more about saving a few dollars on your taxes than anything else." Of course not. What I'm suggesting would likely cost more money than what we are doing now.
Originally Posted By jonvn "you wind up ensuring a miserable life for the baby" Miserable is in the eye of the beholder. The child should not have been born, and the government should not be rewarding the parents. What will the child take away from this? Hopefully the hard lesson that you don't have children you can't afford because if you can't pay for them, they get taken away to someplace who can take care of them. And maybe the parents, by the time they are 18 or so, will learn to stop making babies too, because it does them no good.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>What will the child take away from this? Hopefully the hard lesson that you don't have children you can't afford because if you can't pay for them, they get taken away to someplace who can take care of them.<< And the lesson that you can have as many babies as you want because you won't have to take care of them. And if you give birth to one, be sure to leave it abandoned somewhere so that you won't have to work three jobs to pay for its care.
Originally Posted By DlandJB What will the child take away from this? Hopefully the hard lesson that you don't have children you can't afford because if you can't pay for them, they get taken away to someplace who can take care of them.>>>> Wait...I hear a voice...I think jonvn is channeling.... "Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses? '....I wish to be left alone,' said Scrooge. 'Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned-they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.' 'Many can't go there; and many would rather die.' 'If they would rather die,' said Scrooge, 'they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population." Merry Christmas to all.
Originally Posted By jonvn "And the lesson that you can have as many babies as you want because you won't have to take care of them" Well, no, because as I said, you would be forced to work to pay for them. Three or four jobs, if necessary. "And if you give birth to one, be sure to leave it abandoned somewhere so that you won't have to work three jobs to pay for its care." Forced DNA testing will help with that. But on the other hand, given that someone abandons their child like that, they wouldn't exactly be mother of the year anyway, now would they. "Wait...I hear a voice...I think jonvn is channeling...." What I'm talking about is a way of helping people get off the welfare track, stop having babies they can't afford, and teaching people to be responsible for themselves. What we are doing now isn't working. We don't need workhouses, but we certainly don't need to just funnel money to irresponsible women who pump out children they can't afford, knowing that the government will just give them money for it. God bless us, everyone.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Oh, brother." I honestly think some kids would be better off in an orphanage or in foster care than with the biological parent. Maybe there they'll learn something, and be given some idea of responsibility and perhaps the idea that an education would be a helpful tool in getting them out of the cycle of poverty they are in. Do I hear any other suggestions here?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Well, I've always said that there is no social problem that taking children away from their parents, a giant system of state-run orphanages, enforced labor and forced DNA testing wouldn't solve. We've always been at war with Oceania.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh This is interesting. Jon is presenting a fairly conservative argument, and being responded to with the usual ridicule and other lambastings that liberals respond with.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip >>Eventually that baby grows up and we get to see what we all created. Then what?<< Could it really be any worse than it is right now? We've seen what two generations of kids raised on welfare have produced.
Originally Posted By jonvn The only difference, Douglas, is that I'm trying to respond. I'm not what you'd call a liberal. I'm middle of the road. Some things I'm left, some things I'm right. It goes issue by issue. I try to think about what the thing is I'm talking about and form an opinion, and not follow a blueprint laid out for me by any political party.
Originally Posted By DlandJB Here is a suggestion -- get to the root of the problem. Get to kids before they become sexually active. Church and government run programs that teach responsibilities. If families won't teach them, then parents (mothers and fathers) won't get a penny unless the kids and the parents attend classes that help with better parenting and sex education programs. Mothers do not get a penny without a father's name on the child's birth certificate so both parents are made to be responsible. Better implementation of home visit programs where mothers are visited for the first 6 months of their children's lives and helped with the things they need to know about babies and information for education and parenting are made available. These exist in some communities but not in others. Child care at high schools - again, mandatory schooling until degree or equivalent is obtained in order to qualify for care. There are ways to implement a "tough love" strategy that doesn't include yanking children from their families while still helping. Above all, getting the leadership and role models in the communities where unwed parenting is most prevelant, to take some responsibilities for the future generations.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan He's presenting something that really is an unrealistic, unworkable solution. I believe the answer is in focusing on getting young men to act like responsible young men. To begin the process of making that the thing to do. Increase the financial burden on the fathers as much as possible. Not that anyone needs to be 'rewarded', but I don't think it's a very Christian thing to do to punish the child in all of this. I know Jonvn isn't a Christian, and that's fine. But most abortion opponents are, or say they are.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I've always said that there is no social problem that taking children away from their parents, a giant system of state-run orphanages, enforced labor and forced DNA testing wouldn't solve." Glad you agree. But, really, what would you suggest? As RoadTrip points out, how could it be any worse than what is happening now? Something needs to be done about the problem. I see education and refusing to reward people who have children they can't afford as solutions. Or at least potential solutions. But what about the children? What could best be done for them? I think if a parent can ill afford to raise a child, then that child should not be with that parent. That means taking them away. That would hopefully then indicate to the parent that they need to stop having children, as 1) it does not gain them any more money, and 2) they don't get the children, either, as they can't afford them. That's the goal. And if the treatment is harsh, then it's harsh. But unless we start doing something like what I suggest (and again, I see no alternatives presented here) then we'll never stop the problem at all.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I think if a parent can ill afford to raise a child, then that child should not be with that parent. That means taking them away.<< That's already done now if the child is in harm''s way. It's not a new solution.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I see no alternatives presented here<< There have been several throughout the thread.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I believe the answer is in focusing on getting young men to act like responsible young men." Don't get me wrong, that would be great. The only problem is that there is no way to do this. It's not going to happen. What you suggest is really unrealistic. "But most abortion opponents are, or say they are." I'm not opposed to abortion. In fact, I would give them out for free to people if they wanted them. Pregnant? Can't afford it? Get an abortion. Otherwise, have the baby, and get it taken away because you are not in a position to support it.
